posted December 29, 201107:20 PM
In their desperate bid to find a Republican candidate who's not the too-moderate (or too-mormon perhaps?) Romney, the religious right and the tea party crowd seem to have finally, through a hilarious process of elimination, settled on Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum.

And I don't think it's because anyone actually likes him or thinks he's a remotely suitable candidate, it's purely because he's the only Not-Mitt-Romney candidate left* who hasn't crashed and burned spectacularly. So, much like they did with Newt Gingrich earlier this month, a whole bunch of people are suddenly talking about voting for him because they seem to have ran out of other conservative options.

* If you don't count a homosexual, another mormon, and that libertarian guy that nobody can remember the name of
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted December 30, 201107:00 AM
Fred Karger. He was a campaign strategist for Bush Senior and Reagan, and he's worked with GLBT advocacy groups ever since he retired. He knows he's got no chance (he never gets invited to anything, because various influential religious right groups kept threatening to boycott anything that he attended), and he's basically just doing it as a symbolic gesture.

Personally I suspect that his whole plan is to wait until the campaign's in full swing and then blow all of his cash and political goodwill on some PR stunt to try and make GLBT issues toxic for the other candidates. And considering there are at least three candidates who've said that Lawrence v Texas is a bad decision*, that shouldn't be too hard for him.

* Most notoriously the subject of this thread himself, who ended up with his "google problem" because of comments he made about Lawrence v TExas.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted December 30, 201107:27 AM
Looking at "who's the not-Romney of the month" a little differently, if Romney only has 25% of the support in the polls, 75% has to go somewhere else. It's been flitting to one candidate or another, not so much because that person is the new "it", but because it has to land somewhere. The proof is that some of it is attaching itself to Santorum.

The known candidates all rule themselves out when they open their mouths, or more accurately, when people actually pay attention to what they're saying. But no matter what meaning we try to find in just who it's landing on from day to day, I don't think it really means anything. The candidate whose support doesn't evaporate because of what s/he actually stands for and says will get the vote.

There's no reason to think Romney won't have a solid plurality at the end of the primaries. It remains to be seen if he can negotiate his way into the nomination before the convention. I hope not, because if it's still undecided at that point the others will tear him to shreds in a way that demonstrates with unmistakeable clarity just how mean-spirited and viciously dogmatic the Republican Party has become.

posted December 30, 201106:32 PM
Latest rumor going around is that Nixon was gay. The evidence for it is, well, evidence isn't all that meaningful these days. I think the idea is that it would further disenfranchise him as a Republican. All pre-Reagan politicians of either stripe were pre-evolution, apparently.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

posted December 31, 201101:03 AM
I dunno if I'd call that a "rumour" so much as a "sensational claim that someone threw into a Nixon biography to generate free publicity".
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted December 31, 201106:16 PM
No point in being clever if someone else has already gotten there first. Then you just look like you have no original ideas. Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted January 01, 201206:29 PM
Bah, I'll get off the terrible wordplay once something newsworthy happens. Unfortunately it looks like Rick Santorum is playing things super-safe and not sprouting anything except carefully chosen talking points. It's all "I will now say some generic angry stuff about Iran", "I will now talk about banning gay marriage while carefully not referencing any of the other bat**** insane stuff I've said about GLBT rights over the years", and occasionally "I will now recite an incredibly vague defence of pork for about five seconds before I change the topic".
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted January 01, 201208:52 PM
You missed him saying recently that if he becomes President he will bomb Iran. He said Obama should have intervened in the last Iranian election because it was fraudulent. Any non-Iranian scientist "helping" Iran's nuclear program would be treated as an enemy combatant with the same status as a member of Al Qaeda. He also said he would use the power of the Executive to annul any same-sex marriages that have already taken place. He hasn't gone quiet at all.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

posted January 03, 201207:19 AM
On the gay rights front, five to one says he's foaming sticking specifically to the sort of anti-gay talking points that won't goad the spineless ****s in the media into branding him the bigoted **** that he is.

ie a distinct lack of questions about his belief that Lawrence v Texas was a travesty of justice and that states can and should be able to outlaw sodomy because it's in the public's best interests.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." - Rick Santorum, explaining why he thinks the Lawrence v Texas verdict would totally destroy civilisation or whatever the ****
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

quote:"The answer is not what can we do to prevent deaths because of a lack of health insurance. There’s — I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance,” Santorum said...

posted January 03, 201212:49 PM
You gotta admit it's fun watching the GOP candidates tear each other to shreds. Santorum called Paul "disgusting" today and Paul called Santorum a liberal. Gingrich says that Romney is a liar and would lie if he were elected, but he would support him anyway. Romney says that Gingrich is a drama queen who doesn't know how to lead. Meanwhile, both Perry and Bachmann have been tuned out by the media, so I don't even know what lies they've been telling about each other in the past couple of days.

quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex:Seriously, you want any one of them to be your President?

Well no, because they're conservatives

But yeah, if I was a conservative myself I probably wouldn't be too happy about the current crop. Romney is the man who lost to the man who lost to Obama, Paul's ideology is too far out of the political mainstream for him to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting Congress to adopt any of the reforms he's pushing for, and the rest of the pack consists of two people nobody's even heard of (formerly three, but whatsisname has dropped out and is contesting the Libertarian primaries now) and four incompetents.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted January 04, 201207:37 AM
Romney wins Iowa by 8 votes over Santorum. Along with Paul they are in a virtual tie (25 to 25 to 21).

Will the strong showing in Iowa be enough to sustain the Santorum surge, or is he just the flavor of the month and the GOP will give Huntsman a turn next.

Now that Santorum has had a turn up front, the Mormon bias question comes up again. The whole campaign has been about finding someone other than Romney. The only candidate to not get a chance to be the frontrunner is the only other candidate who is Mormon. Politically they are very different. The only things they really have in common are being governors and being Mormon (although Romney has changed his mind enough times that you can probably find him supporting every position of Huntsman).

I'm guessing that Perry and Bachmann drop out. Gingrich will stick around because he doesn't have anything else to do, and Huntsman will stick around because he has been putting all of his efforts into New Hampshire and South Carolina. It will be interesting to see who the GOP falls back to once they decide Santorum isn't the one. Will it be Gingrich or Huntsman?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

In the weird world of Iowa caucus politics, he'll use it as a mandate. I am surprised by Santorum's rise, but it won't translate to wins elsewhere. The problem is that the preferred choice in the GOP is none of the above, and the picture doesn't change when you throw in any of the names that have been bandied about. I have no idea what's going to happen, which means I could be an expert commentator on TV.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

posted January 04, 201210:37 AM
The funny part is that, although Romney won, he apparently had the same percentage of votes as back in 2008, when he lost.

One thing for sure, there is no consensus yet. I wonder if this is because the Republican Party has fractionalized so much that they can't agree on any one candidate. Or if it because they smell blood, and each fraction is trying to get "their man"* nominated.

quote:Originally posted by Wayward Son:The funny part is that, although Romney won, he apparently had the same percentage of votes as back in 2008, when he lost.

True. But of course John McCain placed 4th with only 13% of the results in 2008 and he won the eventual nomination. The 13% 4th place that McCain obtained is nearly identical to Newt Gingrich's results yesterday. Not that I think Gingrich has much chance of winning. He's smart, but he doesn't have a Presidential temperament.

This is a pretty solid win for Romney. Even a second place finish wouldn't have changed the politics very much. He'll easily win New Hampshire. That's two of the first three. If he picks up South Carolina also, he'll be in position to cruise to super Tuesday.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |

1. H.Res.373: Expressing support for the designation of September as “National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.” Passed by Voice Vote.2. H.Amdt.634: Requiring the Department of Energy Inspector General to report to Congress on waste, fraud and abuse within the Department. Passed by Voice Vote.

posted January 04, 201201:10 PM
Ron Paul will have a bit of a problem if he gets the nomination. It's hard for me to see him picking any of these jokers as running mates.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |

quote: If you want another big-government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle, Rick Santorum. America is based on a strong belief in individual liberty. My uncle’s interventionist policies, both domestic and foreign, stem from his irrational fear of freedom not working.

It is not the government’s job to dictate to individuals how they must live. The Constitution was designed to protect individual liberty. My Uncle Rick cannot fathom a society in which people cooperate and work with each other freely. When Republicans were spending so much money under President Bush, my uncle was right there along with them as a senator. The reason we have so much debt is not only because of Democrats, but also because of big-spending Republicans like my Uncle Rick.

It is because of this inability of status quo politicians to recognize the importance of our individual liberties that I have been drawn to Ron Paul. Unlike my uncle, he does not believe that the American people are incapable of forming decisions. He believes that an individual is more powerful than any group (a notion our founding fathers also believed in).

Another important reason I support Ron Paul is his position on foreign policy. He is the only candidate willing to bring our troops home, not only from the Middle East, but from around the world.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate trying to win the election for a reason other than simply winning the election.

This year, I’ll vote for an honest change in our government. I’ll vote for real hope. I’ll vote for a real leader. This year, I will vote for Ron Paul.

John Garver is a 19-year-old student at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. John is a strong supporter of Ron Paul despite his love for family member Rick Santorum.

posted January 04, 201203:37 PM
By the time they're done they'll be nominating and praising the virtues of the tallest midget after he's been whittled to the quick. Remember that Gingrich called Romney a liar the other day and said that if he lies now he'll lie in office too. He was then asked if that meant that he would not support Romney if he got the nomination, he said of course he would support him.

All Obama may have to do is play videos of the things these guys have been saying about each other for the past 6 months. At least Paul is honest enough to say that he wouldn't support any of them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

posted January 04, 201204:12 PM
I'd bet on Romney at this point; but I wouldn't give much in the way of odds. This is the TEA party's last chance to sabotage the GOP and the country; they won't want to waste it.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted January 04, 201205:08 PM
"Would you like to put some money down? Or our you all talk?"

I'll bet you the $10,000 Romney offered.

FWIW, I also don't see who could overtake Romney, but bear in mind that Romney got exactly the same percentage of the vote this time in Iowa as he did in 2008. So, if that's the same what is different? I think it's that the field is pathetically weak and he's the least vulnerable and best organized of the lot.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex:"Would you like to put some money down? Or our you all talk?"

I'll bet you the $10,000 Romney offered.

Deal

quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex:I think it's that the field is pathetically weak and he's the least vulnerable and best organized of the lot.

A weak field? Probably, but it's not a very weak field. I think Romney will be a better candidate than either Kerry or McCain was. Of course they both lost the election. The question is will the weak nominee Romney be stronger than the weak incumbent Obama. And Obama is surely a weak incumbent.

posted January 04, 201208:14 PM
As Big Mick remarked a while back, even with pathetically weak Republican candidates, Intrade still has Obama's chance to be elected again only at 51%. The question is why, and after a lot of thinking I believe the answer lies in another figure on Intrade. That is the chance the economy will go into a recession in 2012, which was rated at about one in three a month or so ago, and is now rated at 30%. In other words, unless the economy tanks, Obama should walk into a second term. But if the United States goes into a major recession or depression, he would have a very hard time against any of the probable Republican candidates, especially Romney.

A while ago I predicted Perry had the best chance of being the nominee, which now looks wrong. He blundered, and his chances probably went away for this election. But Perry may not even have wanted to run against Obama, as he would have a much better chance of winning in 2016. But he needed experience in campaigning, and he needed to make sure Romney had a hard time getting the nomination and eventually lost, or he would have no chance in four years. He turned in a rather pathetic performance this time, but I expect him to return in 2016 as a much stronger contender. Any governor of Texas is in a good position to become a candidate, and he presumably has the desire.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex:I think it's that the field is pathetically weak and he's the least vulnerable and best organized of the lot.

A weak field? Probably, but it's not a very weak field. I think Romney will be a better candidate than either Kerry or McCain was. Of course they both lost the election. The question is will the weak nominee Romney be stronger than the weak incumbent Obama. And Obama is surely a weak incumbent.

I'd say it's a hella weak field. Romney's shown (both by his lack of screwups in the current race and his strong performance in '08) that he's a viable candidate, but the rest of the field is pretty woeful. Perry's an incompetent washout, Bachmann and Cain were completely nuts, Ron Paul is... Ron Paul, Gingrich is deeply uncharismatic and unlikable, and Rick Santorum is an underachieving nobody whose surge of popularity is due entirely to the fact that all the other non-Romney candidates have demonstrated how crap they are. The entire campaign to date has consisted of the evangelicals and tea partiers rallying behind someone that they hope can beat Romney, followed by that someone reminding everyone that they're incompetent, followed by the evangelicals and tea partiers moving on to the next alternative and repeating the process.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by hobsen: As Big Mick remarked a while back, even with pathetically weak Republican candidates, Intrade still has Obama's chance to be elected again only at 51%. The question is why, and after a lot of thinking I believe the answer lies in another figure on Intrade. That is the chance the economy will go into a recession in 2012, which was rated at about one in three a month or so ago, and is now rated at 30%. In other words, unless the economy tanks, Obama should walk into a second term. But if the United States goes into a major recession or depression, he would have a very hard time against any of the probable Republican candidates, especially Romney.

Obama's performance on Intrade will change dramatically once there's a clear winner in the Republican GOP primaries. When you ask people how they think Obama will go against a hypothetical candidate, you're basically asking them whether they think Obama sucks. When you ask them how they think OBama will go against a specific candidate, you're asking them whether they think Obama or the other guy sucks the most.
Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |

posted January 06, 201206:40 AM
It's worse for them than that. Employment and economic growth indicators are finally starting to edge up in what look like credible trends. His military strategic restructuring speech yesterday makes a hell of a lot of sense and it's already being ripped to shreds by Republicans. Their latest mantra of "leading from behind" is already sounding tinny, not to mention that I think the majority of people in this country want our military profile to be lowered and pushed to the background.

The purpose of most campaigns is to paint the other guy indelibly in a way that people will tend to reject. The GOP has been doing that to Obama for three solid years and he's still standing. Their hackneyed epithets and stridency are getting kind of old just as Obama is beginning to return the favor. He must have new people steering him around these days, because I'm beginning to see the turning of the tide in his favor.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |